[From Climateark.org]
Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution. <snip> Professor Smith told Chemistry World: "The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto."
<snip>
Professor Smith told Chemistry World: "The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto."
i also wonder if pollution in brazilian cities has dropped significantly since the increased use of sugar ethanol. (i kinda doubt it, what with other air pollution sources like heavy industry, diesel transport etc.)
i think sugar cane has a pretty low need for fertiliser, after seeing it grow wild in hawaii, but i'd like more info on that. certainly you're right about monoculture and erosion.
the sea would be stained red where the sugar cane industry was, up on the hamakua coast, and the burning of the fields was pretty toxic too.
if the use of toxic chemicals could be curtailed completely, perhaps sugar cane could be a transition fuel for tropical zones, provided there was mulching to minimise erosion, especially if it could be used in conjunction with land reclamation, or some similar kind of environmental repair, while we head for an all-electric society 50 years down the road...
i don't know if that's the case when grown for fuel.
great diary. The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. Chinese Proverb.
it certainly was for sugar.
it was a happy day in hawaii when they phased it out, as the trucks hauling the cane to the mills were huge and always leaking bits of plants, whole stems sometimes.
i recall they used the bagasse (leftovers) to burn to fire the mill, but they still were losing money hand over fist.
the overall effects, from environmental to dietetic, were a right mess...
if they do extract the juice to make ethanol, then the bagasse would have serious mulching potential.
i think they burned the cane in order to strip the stems (sugar cane is a grass), so as to make it possible to haul more. the leaves have no juice, so were useless to the sugar producers.
obviously a very high-energy plant, doubtless to figure ever more in our future...though cane cutters did not have a good life, historically, in hawaii.
they worked them to death, and imported portugese overseers to crack the whips over the filipinos, chinese, and other asians. which leads me to wonder what kind of working conditions the cane cutters are experiencing in brazil, in order to produce $50 a barrel fuel...
however, the best replacement crop they've found, afaik, for the best farmland on the largely lava rock and cinders island of hawaii, was eucalyptus, which was burned for biomass, chosen for speed of growth.
which is problematic, because eucalyptus poisons the ground below it for other plants.
sigh. The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. Chinese Proverb.
